PDA

View Full Version : Fight, a beating that won't stop!


KS.45
December 22, 2007, 05:33 PM
An instructor I know poses this scenario to his CC classes in Kansas.

There are 2 men (call then A & B) in a fist fight, B is now on ground and obviously not defending himself. A is astride B's chest and still pouring it on full force to the guys head. It now looks like B could be beaten to death.

You are a witness and licensed to carry. What do you say and/or do?

Double Naught Spy
December 22, 2007, 05:58 PM
If you are friends with the instructuor, why not ask him?

So what if you are licensed to carry?

kgpcr
December 22, 2007, 07:15 PM
let him know you have called 911 and the police are on the way. stay out of it unless he decides to come after you. When a perp hears the cops are on the way they dont want to be there when they get there.

Blackwater OPS
December 22, 2007, 07:43 PM
First off you don't know who started it, and that may make a big difference in your jurisdiction. In any case, you might not want to skip right to deadly force, but I would certainly intervene. Than again, I am 5'11 and 230lb, pretty fit, If I was 5'1 and 130lb I doubt I would do anything but call 911.

KS.45
December 22, 2007, 08:01 PM
The instructor's answer is to get 911 called, loudly ask a witness to do it if there are any. Verbally warn the aggressor, LOUDLY. End your statement to him with "Don't make me shoot you!"

Maintain control of your line of fire, do not intervene physically by shoving or kicking the aggressor.

If the threat to life is clear to you and there is no stopping the agressor verbally ... shoot the aggressor when you have a good shot that won't endanger others.

If B dies with you doing nothing but getting 911 called and it becomes known that you were carrying, you might be subject to civil action by B's family. If you shoot the agressor, the same thing may also happen, he will have a family too.

The instructor remarked that this is one of the things that that people don't often think about when they decide to CC. It's more than just you and your family that can be involved.

Always know that you can and will be sued in a deadly force situation. The more you are worth, the more likely it is that a lawyer will take the lawsuit on contingency. Even if you are cleared on the shooting by the police and/or DA.

garryc
December 22, 2007, 08:15 PM
That depends on where you are. In Ohio you may use force to defend someone if they would be justified in useing force if they could. That person must have had no part in creating or escalating the assault. That includes verbally.
I might pull him off, but no way I'd use my CCW. Even after pulling him off and he goes after me. It's a big risk because in Ohio it doesn't matter that you didn't know the situation, you are still responcible.

cold dead hands
December 22, 2007, 08:21 PM
Let's try this. You are C.

A is the one who attacked B.

B got the upper hand is now furiously beating the life out of A.

If you allow B to kill A then you are technically accessory to murder. The law may not charge you as such, but your lack of prevention in a killing makes you guilty just the same.

You have the duty to shoot to wound B. You aren't shooting to kill. You are shooting to stop the threat. If B dies from his wounds...so be it. That is what he gets for attempting to take the life of another.

A may be a scumbag, but B has no right to take A's life after he is obvious no longer a threat to B. A is beaten and B must cease his attack.

I say shoot B if needed to save A's life....even if A doesn't deserve it. That is what makes us better than A. C must rise above the level that A and B reside on.

KS.45
December 22, 2007, 08:38 PM
Either way in Kansas, if you have the capacity to defend a life, you can do it. Of course, the issue can go to what witnesses say in court.

But the fact remains you shoot, you don't endanger others by putting yourself in a position where your weapon could become a danger to anyone but the aggressor.

It's a situation fraught with "what ifs" and the advice was to focus on the immediate danger to human life and the need to stop the threat.

I think that putting the sights on the agressor's head and blowing his brains out might be seen by some as "over the top". But the danger to life needs to end once it is recognized.

This is the one thing about the class that gave me the most thought. It's a disturbing thing to contemplate when the implications are taken into account.

Thunderhawk88
December 22, 2007, 08:47 PM
If B dies with you doing nothing but getting 911 called and it becomes known that you were carrying, you might be subject to civil action by B's family.

Maybe that is Kansas law, I don't know, because I haven't read the Kansas CCW laws, but it is not that way everywhere. In our CCW class here we were told that we can use our weapon in defense of others if they are in extreme physical danger but- we are not in any way Law Enforcement.

For this situation though, after calling 911, if it looks like "B" is in danger of being killed then the Kansas instructors answer is a good one.

If you allow B to kill A then you are technically accessory to murder. The law may not charge you as such, but your lack of prevention in a killing makes you guilty just the same.

Wow, I don't see that anywhere in the law.

KS.45
December 22, 2007, 09:00 PM
In civil law, you generally must render lifesaving aid to those in need if you have the ability to help. That is true in this situation until the police arrive.

When the cops get there, put the gun on the floor and follow the nice cop's instructions. Have a cooperative attitude. But say only how glad you are they are there and tell them only: 1. ID info, 2. You are licensed to carry. 3. You had to act to save a life.

Say you want to make no other statement without advice of counsel. Other than that, shut up and contact an attorney.

joab
December 22, 2007, 09:00 PM
Wow, I don't see that anywhere in the law.I think he is referring to a higher law

It is very plausible the A has lost himself in a moment of adrenaline induce fury
He may have just been in a fight for his life and the off switch has malfed for a moment
Simply diverting his attention momentarily may be enough to snap him out of it

If not you may have to shoot him

Last I cecked Florida did not have a good Samaritan law and our new law immunes of from prosecution and civil liability if we rightfully shoot someone

Figuring the instructors comments into the law suit risk assessment it would be better for me to shoot the guy

KS.45
December 22, 2007, 09:10 PM
The shouted verbal warning, and a laser dot. That's what the aggressor gets from me and the G36.

The next thing is bang.

And I pray this is something that never happens to me.

Thunderhawk88
December 22, 2007, 09:17 PM
Wow, I don't see that anywhere in the law.

I think he is referring to a higher law

That could be, and then that would be between you and you maker. The problem here is unless you are covered by good samaritan laws (and possibly even if you are) it's a no win situation for "C".

Ks.45, that laser dot could be a real attention getter!

KS.45
December 22, 2007, 09:21 PM
Think I'll add this to my sig.

A Laser dot transcends all language barriers.

ssilicon
December 23, 2007, 12:19 AM
You have the duty to shoot to wound B. You aren't shooting to kill. You are shooting to stop the threat. If B dies from his wounds...so be it. That is what he gets for attempting to take the life of another.

You don't have a "duty" to shoot anyone. Secondly, there is no shooting to "wound". A firearm is to be considered lethal force and DEATH is to be a highly anticipated outcome. These scenerios you create are not completely based in reality.

jlwman
December 23, 2007, 12:37 AM
In civil law, you generally must render lifesaving aid to those in need if you have the ability to help.


No...you don't.

rbrgs
December 23, 2007, 12:47 AM
Yesterday on another thread someone asked me how failing to intervene could expose one to civil liability. This is an old principle of common law, and it may vary by state, but you will probably get sued if someone dies, one way or another. I'd rather be hung for a ram than a sheep.
Certainly, I would feel a moral obligation to intervene.
In my youth, I was involved in some civil disobedience that used nonviolence as a tactic.
Nonviolence as a way of life includes be ready and able to stop violence when I see it.

KS.45
December 23, 2007, 03:26 AM
If you have the ability to assist and do not, you can be held liable for the outcome as easily as not. It's law based on neglect and indifference. Decisions like it are made often in civil litigation. Cases of this sort make the news commonly.

What's your explanation jlwman? Why is this not true?

Brit
December 23, 2007, 04:37 AM
Many years ago, 1960! sounds like a fairy tale, while working as a very new and inexperienced Doorman (Bouncer) in the UK, the exact scene described was taking place in a converted wine cellar in Liverpool, in my wisdom, lack of! I gripped aggressor, to pull him off... blow to my back, I had been stabbed.

Back to drawing board, new me, same situation, it happened a few times, first arrive mob handed, at least 4 of us, "Stand back" gain some space, kick with right foot, in to right kidney area, extract the two ex scrappers, dump in street. I worked there for 4 years, just a part time night job, new family, new house, extra cash. A lot of fights, you learn quick.

The Tourist
December 23, 2007, 04:48 AM
This goes back to something we pointed out a few weeks before.

You don't cease being the victim just because you're winning.

The guy on the ground might be a jacker with poor fighting skills.

From that standpoint, stopping the fight in any way means the felon might successfully attempt a counter-attack. Meaning it may have been better to let the winner finish him off.

For the sake of the debate, my opinion is that you do not have enough info to do anything but call the police.

Scriz
December 23, 2007, 05:43 AM
If I was in that situation, it would be a judgement call. But, heres my .02. This is my law enforcement training coming out, please don't mind me :) .

Reasons for deadly force

1. Self defense and the defense of others
2. Assets involving national security
3. Assets not involving national security, but inherently dangerous to others
4. Serious offenses against persons
5. Arrest or apprehension
6. Protect public health and safety
7. Escape

In this scenario, number 1 would apply. So yes I would use deadly force if my approach did not remove the "assaulter" from the "victim".

From that standpoint, stopping the fight in any way means the felon might successfully attempt a counter-attack. Meaning it may have been better to let the winner finish him off.


The Tourist

Whether the person on top is the one defending himself, defense should stop when the threat is removed. If the person who assaulted you is on the ground knocked out, this is not "defense" if you keep pummeling him.

Sorry for the rant. :)

cold dead hands
December 23, 2007, 06:52 AM
You don't cease being the victim just because you're winning

You don't get to kill your attacker just because you are winning. The only time that death to the attack is a legitimate option is when you realize that the attack will resume after you quit doing battle.

Meaning it may have been better to let the winner finish him off.


Lets take this to the extreme.

Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. America was the victim. However, retaliation was made and Japan was beaten. There was no reason to continue killing the Japanese. Should we have finished them off? The threat was over and there was no fear of the war starting again.

If it is obvious that the ''victim'' has turned the tables and is absolutely the victor than he has no right to destroy the life of his attacker. This is what seperates us from those who would seek to do us harm.

For the sake of the debate, my opinion is that you do not have enough info to do anything but call the police.

I bet the DA is gonna wanna talk to you as a witness to a murder and he/she will look in to your history to find out what kind of citizen you are. They want to know if you are not a criminal because it will affect your credibility on the stand after they subpoena you.

Now lets say that the DA discovers that you were legally packing and did nothing to prevent the killing. He isn't like to charge with anything relating to the killing itself, but some states do have good samaritan laws and you would in violation of that law. You are likely to face prosecution for that.

If you are willing to call the police because you are witness to a killer in the act, you had better be ready to deal the legal system for a while.


You don't have a "duty" to shoot anyone

That attitude is exactly the world is going to heck in a hand-basket. You may not be your brother's keeper, but you should have the moral integrity to save someone when it is obvious he is going to be killed unless you intervene.

Secondly, there is no shooting to "wound"

The attempt to save one man doesn't mean you intentionally kill the other. If the would-be killer should die from his wounds then that is just the way it was meant to be.

If you ever had to shoot in the defense of yourself or another and said that you were shooting to kill I bet that you would be hung out to dry. You say that you were shooting to stop the attack. That means causing potentially lethal wounds. You only shoot to kill when it is the ONLY choice that guarantees the threat will stop.

joab
December 23, 2007, 07:23 AM
Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. America was the victim. However, retaliation was made and Japan was beaten. There was no reason to continue killing the Japanese. Should we have finished them off? The threat was over and there was no fear of the war starting again.
Damn Hands, get ready for another cold day
Perfect analogy
Once the fight is won it is no longer a fight

If you ever had to shoot in the defense of yourself or another and said that you were shooting to kill I bet that you would be hung out to dry. You say that you were shooting to stop the attack. That means causing potentially lethal wounds. You only shoot to kill when it is the ONLY choice that guarantees the threat will stop.It's warming up a little

I would never shoot to wound any more than I would shoot to kill
Using either term could bite you in the butt
You only shoot to end the threat noting more elaborate than that

kgpcr
December 23, 2007, 08:53 AM
Reasons for deadly force
1. Self defense and the defense of others
2. Assets involving national security
3. Assets not involving national security, but inherently dangerous to others
4. Serious offenses against persons
5. Arrest or apprehension
6. Protect public health and safety
7. Escape


Escape??? so you can shoot a kid who is running away after you told him to stop when all he did was something minor??
Protect public heath. Jimmy has a cold and did not cover his mouth when he coughed. Better shoot him
Aprehension, a bunch of kids are out having a beer in a park and you see them. they scatter so you can shoot them?? You law enforcement training must have been very very poor. Cops who have been trained like this scare the SH*& out of me!

Thunderhawk88
December 23, 2007, 09:40 AM
You don't get to kill your attacker just because you are winning. The only time that death to the attack is a legitimate option is when you realize that the attack will resume after you quit doing battle.


Excellent point. Alot of people get carried away with the emotion of the event and get into a "blood-lust".

Scriz
December 23, 2007, 10:04 AM
Escape??? so you can shoot a kid who is running away after you told him to stop when all he did was something minor??
Protect public heath. Jimmy has a cold and did not cover his mouth when he coughed. Better shoot him
Aprehension, a bunch of kids are out having a beer in a park and you see them. they scatter so you can shoot them?? You law enforcement training must have been very very poor. Cops who have been trained like this scare the SH*& out of me!

kgpcr, you are taking this too far out of context. Protect public health means that, say, theres a person threatening the air you breath by contaminating it, or the water you drink, or the food you eat.

Also, "escape" is a broad term, I do agree, but in short it means an escapee from apprehension or some sort of restraint.

Theres also this little thing called the "deadly force triangle" that we must adhere to.

Also, please do not insult me because you do not like my opinion.

Please think about what you're typing before you post it.

hogdogs
December 23, 2007, 10:07 AM
By "escape" as mentioned by the LEO I thought it meant so he could escape from attack:o.
As for me I am no big guy 5'8" 140-145 usually... Armed or unarmed I would do my best to stop the attack. First move would be to tell a witness to call 911 at the same time I am going for fight ending kick to the face or a haymaker fist blow. If that were not enough and I was armed I might draw. If not I would go for more kicks and punches! I will either succeed at knocking him out or draw attention to myself at which point I will be fresh and ready to keep going and I hate to be on the ground so would battle for all I was worth!
Brent

Scriz
December 23, 2007, 10:22 AM
Since it seems I have to define this more, lets go into depth.

"6. Arrest or apprehension: When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to arrest or apprehend a person who, there is probable cause to believe, has committed one of the serious offenses referred to above.

7. Escape: When deadly force has been specifically authorized by superiors and reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner, provided there is probable cause to believe that such person:
A. Has committed or attempted to commit one of the serious offenses referred to above
B. Would pose an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm to law enforcement or security personnel or to any other person."

This isn't hidden knowledge.

Taken from DOD Directive 5210.56

Creature
December 23, 2007, 10:38 AM
scriz...I am military also. I know that directive intimately. That DoD directive does not apply to civilian matters and has no bearing on the discussion and should not be presented here as the guiding justification of the use of deadly force. Your snide and condescending tone is misplaced and out of line.

ZeSpectre
December 23, 2007, 10:45 AM
Scenarios like this one are why I wish we'd had Tasers when I was working in LE. We always had to get folks separated the hard n' dirty way.

Lurper
December 23, 2007, 11:08 AM
Wow. I don't know what planet this Kansas is on, but there sure is a lot of misinformation there apparently.
You have no "duty" to intervene in anything as a private citizen.

Good samaritan laws protect those who intervene, not punish those who don't.

You don't open yourself to civil liability by not acting. But, anyone can sue you for anything at any time.

You don't open yourself up to criminal liability by not acting. You are not a LEO.

At the point where someone's life is in danger, it doesn't matter who was the aggressor.

In many states, if your use of lethal force is justified, then you are protected from civil liability. KNOW YOUR STATE'S LAWS! The real ones, not one that someone posts on the internet and realize that knowing the law is only half the information you need to know. The other half is case law. If there is a legal precedent in the law that goes for or against your action, then it is going to have an effect on the proceedings.

I would question the wisdon of any instructor who advocates that students get involved in third party incident in almost every case unless all of the facts surrounding the situation are known. Your Concealed Weapon Permit is not a hero waiting to happen permit.

smallshot
December 23, 2007, 11:17 AM
OK, how about this. You briefly interview both, (or at least the coherent one), to see who is the offending party. Then you shoot the other one and leave. Works for me.

Creature
December 23, 2007, 11:20 AM
OK, how about this. You briefly interview both, (or at least the coherent one), to see who is the offending party. Then you shoot the other one and leave. Works for me.

And this is why WA snorts on about yahoos and chest thumping...especially when it is not even remotely funny or amusing.

jlwman
December 23, 2007, 11:30 AM
Wow. I don't know what planet this Kansas is on, but there sure is a lot of misinformation there apparently.
You have no "duty" to intervene in anything as a private citizen.

Good samaritan laws protect those who intervene, not punish those who don't.

You don't open yourself to civil liability by not acting. But, anyone can sue you for anything at any time.

You don't open yourself up to criminal liability by not acting. You are not a LEO.

At the point where someone's life is in danger, it doesn't matter who was the aggressor.

In many states, if your use of lethal force is justified, then you are protected from civil liability. KNOW YOUR STATE'S LAWS! The real ones, not one that someone posts on the internet and realize that knowing the law is only half the information you need to know. The other half is case law. If there is a legal precedent in the law that goes for or against your action, then it is going to have an effect on the proceedings.

I would question the wisdon of any instructor who advocates that students get involved in third party incident in almost every case unless all of the facts surrounding the situation are known. Your Concealed Weapon Permit is not a hero waiting to happen permit.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!

I'm from KS and I totally agree with the above. I would love to see proof of someone who lost a court case in Kansas because they did not help someone in need.

KS's CCL has only been out for a year now. So, I can understand some mis-information as KS has redone some of it's CCL laws.

odessastraight
December 23, 2007, 11:53 AM
Well smallshot, I thought it was funny. Of course, since we are also considering military solutions, just shoot them both and let God sort them out.

Some of you guys seem very, politically correct and also very tightly wrapped. Lighten up just a tad.

Thunderhawk88
December 23, 2007, 12:00 PM
OK, how about this. You briefly interview both, (or at least the coherent one), to see who is the offending party. Then you shoot the other one and leave. Works for me.

lmao....sound good, or at least funny, to me! :D

Perldog007
December 23, 2007, 12:03 PM
I would rather be hung like a ram and have plenty of sheep available :D

My experience and training in the continuum of the use of force would not necessarily indicate shooting the actor on top doing the pummeling. If I could get behind the aggressor and whack him sharply on the side of the neck about an inch below the angle of the jaw that would do it.

If A was completely helpless, B was clearly taking the acton beyond self defense and no other means were available then a shot might seem indicated. Sitting here with my tin foil hat on and all of my keyboard commando symbols of power nearby I can't clearly see a path of action.

In reality if there was anyway for me not to get involved that is what would probably happen. Sometimes right is right and you have to take action. In this day and age that would have to be very clear cut for me. YMMV.

Fremmer
December 23, 2007, 12:28 PM
If B dies with you doing nothing but getting 911 called and it becomes known that you were carrying, you might be subject to civil action by B's family.

If you have the ability to assist and do not, you can be held liable for the outcome as easily as not. It's law based on neglect and indifference. Decisions like it are made often in civil litigation. Cases of this sort make the news commonly.

What's your explanation jlwman? Why is this not true?

This isn't true because you must owe a legal duty to another before you can be liable for breaching the duty owed. A CCW holder owes no legal duty to anyone with regard to the required use of deadly force (or any force, for that matter) to protect another. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see the Kansas case holding otherwise (I'm not aware of a case imposing such a duty on a CCW holder); ask your instructor to provide the name and cite of the case establishing such a duty.

My guess is that your instructor can't provide the cite -- because it doesn't exist. I'd find another instructor if I were you, preferably one who actually knows the law. This guy is giving you bad advice.

Creature
December 23, 2007, 12:29 PM
lmao....sound good, or at least funny, to me!

Well smallshot, I thought it was funny. Of course, since we are also considering military solutions, just shoot them both and let God sort them out.

Some of you guys seem very, politically correct and also very tightly wrapped. Lighten up just a tad.

It's one thing to make jests when someone is posting a scenario after the fact and quite another to offer it up as a solution to a legitimate question. If you think suggestions like the one Small made has a place here, you are not adding anything to this forum.

Keep in mind that some who visit here are not at all as mature or clear thinking as should be. Some come to broaden their minds and some possibly to see things in a different light. If your jest influences someone to make a bad decision, you have done a disservice to this forum.

If you want comedy, go watch the comedy channel.

rampage841512
December 23, 2007, 12:40 PM
I think the instructor gave the most appropriate answer.

vox rationis
December 23, 2007, 12:43 PM
Shout verbal stop warnings/commands/called 911 type of thing, and then maybe a series of blasts of pepper spray in the aggressor's face? And that's only if I was conviced that the guy getting pummled was out cold and taking potentially seriously dammaging strikes at that point.

But what if the plot thickens

1)You intervene by getting the pummeler off of the pummeley. The Pummeley than produces a handgun/knife and shoots/stabs the initial aggressor, and runs off.
2)you intervene as above, but after doing so the Pummeley comes to, and sees the ex Pummeler hurt, shouts "YOu son of a @@@@! You hurt my brother/dad/etc, I AM GONNA KILL YOU!"

We bit a little more than we could chew on that one, didn't we? The point is like you guys have been saying, you have no idea exactly what is happening and potentially you could be attacking the aggrieved that just had the capacity to gain the upper hand after being attacked initially, or you could get involved in a domestic violence issue. I am not saying that one shouldn't intervene necessarily, but by intervening you are opening a big old Pandoras box, and by intervening you have to realize that you have to be able to control both parties, OR that you can become a target! That scenario is a job for the police that can control both subjects until they figure out what is going on!

Capt Charlie
December 23, 2007, 01:06 PM
2)you intervene as above, but after doing so the Pummeley comes to, and sees the ex Pummeler hurt, shouts "YOu son of a @@@@! You hurt my brother/dad/etc, I AM GONNA KILL YOU!"
Good point! I have had this happen to me several times. Arrived on scene of a domestic to find hubby beating the hell out of his wife. Did a takedown on hubby, only to find his wife on my back trying to remove my scalp.

It happens, and it happens frequently. Often, things are not as simple as they appear.

Google Stockholm Syndrome (http://ask.yahoo.com/20030324.html), and it does occur in battered spouses, etc.

ATW525
December 23, 2007, 01:09 PM
Dial 911 and observe from a safe distance until police arrive. I have never been an LEO, or a bouncer and I have no training in fight intervention. I'm simply not qualified to render that type of assistance, just like I'm not qualified to administer CPR.

KS.45
December 23, 2007, 01:13 PM
The guy getting the worst of it may go home and kill someone too. The point is:

Your possible presence at the scene of a beating and carrying a gun, puts some choices before you that should be considered before the event. Your choice is what you will live and possibly go to court with.

We encounter many people by chance in life and the chances are high that it may be one of them in trouble.

What about the mall shootings? If CC was allowed there, and you were behind the perp, would you take him out?

I guess I would .. I don't know for sure .. but that is my best guess about getting involved personally.

There are laws on the books about neglect and indifference. They will either support your action or be used against you in civil court.

The aggressor that won't stop when the opponent is knocked out just takes the situation down to a smaller number of victims. Hopefully he will stop when warned. Maybe he won't.

mattro
December 23, 2007, 01:26 PM
ATW525: Dial 911 and observe from a safe distance until police arrive. I have never been an LEO, or a bouncer and I have no training in fight intervention. I'm simply not qualified to render that type of assistance, just like I'm not qualified to administer CPR.

So if an attacker broke into your house and was going to slit your wife's or kid's throat and you are standing there with a handgun, you are saying you are not qualified to end the threat? GIVE ME A BREAK...

I say, anyone that values life, and knows how to pull a trigger is qualified.

The scenerio of this post is not alot different than the attacker slitting your wife's throat. There is a recognizable threat that someone is taking getting ready to take a defenseless person's life.

imo, loe's are no more qualified (many less) to end a threat than I am...

Lurper
December 23, 2007, 01:35 PM
There are laws on the books about neglect and indifference. They will either support your action or be used against you in civil court.

I'd like you to cite said laws. They do not exist. No state requires its citizens to get involved (unless specifically asked by an LEO in some). No state penalizes its citizens for not getting involved. This is pure fallacy.

As is the concept that you WILL get sued if you use lethal force. You May or May Not, it depends on many factors. For those who are fortunate enough to live in certain states, you cannot be sued if the shooting is ruled as legal use of lethal force.

Comparing this scenario to the Mall shootings is definately apples and oranges. But even in that case, you have no LEGAL obligation to intervene.

I think the instructor gave the most appropriate answer.

Up to the point where he advocated getting involved, it was good advice. After that, his advice will affect the rest of your life and several others. In almost every case, the best course of action in third party incidents is to call 911 and be a good witness. You have no idea what transpired before your arrival, no idea who the actors are, nor the specifics of the incident. In other words, you don't have enough information to make an informed decision. How do you know the guy on top isn't a cop for example? How do you know he isn't deaf or so focused he can't hear your warning? There is far too much you don't know and what you don't know can hurt you in this case.

Some of you really need to learn more about the law, think your actions through and consider finding better qualified, more informed instructors.

Lurper
December 23, 2007, 01:40 PM
The scenerio of this post is not alot different than the attacker slitting your wife's throat. There is a recognizable threat that someone is taking getting ready to take a defenseless person's life.
It's totally different. You know the actors involved and though you may not know every detail, you know enough that any reasonble person could make an assumption about the situation.

Mattro, it isn't a question of being qualified to end the threat, it is a question of wisdom, legal and moral justification.

Scriz
December 23, 2007, 01:53 PM
scriz...I am military also. I know that directive intimately. That DoD directive does not apply to civilian matters and has no bearing on the discussion and should not be presented here as the guiding justification of the use of deadly force. Your snide and condescending tone is misplaced and out of line.

Creature, deadly force is deadly force. It does not matter if its civilian, military, or on an alien planet.

Also, that "tone" was not directed at you, please leave your military bulliness at your job.

The "tone" that you've shown here should be sharpened as well. Misplaced and out of line you say? If you're offended by what someone says on an internet forum, you should grow some thicker skin.

rbrgs
December 23, 2007, 01:55 PM
I think I have a moral obligation to intervene, your moral code may differ. If you're religious, this may be a question your priest/minister/rabbi/wizard can answer; but ask yourself, how would the world be if everyone acted like me?

At least think about what you would do in various situations; even a mediocre plan beats standing with your mouth hanging open.

How much force common law still has depends a lot on your state; I wouldn't want to try to explain to a jury in Vermont how my gun was just to protect myself and not anyone else.

This is why a well regulated (trained) militia is necessary to a free state (and if you're not confident/competent, get some training); or do you want to have (and pay for) enough cops so citizens won't have to act like adults?

KS.45
December 23, 2007, 02:11 PM
Indifference and neglect are used in common case law in both criminal and civil courts. Juries decide on these issues regularly. From an insurance company that won't pay for surgery, like the Sarkisyan case in CA. or the parent leaving the kid in a hot car alone in NV. It's in the news regularly. The basis for the action is neglect and/or indifference to a life. The cases are very very common.

When you have the means to prevent a death, and you do nothing, you can be held liable for damages. How likely is it?

Well, the police will take ID info from witnesses, you are a witness and you have a CC permit, that will show up eventually on your report. Even if you take no action.

A dead or severly injured person's family will be looking for a way to pay final expenses, or an attorney will offer his services, just to scan the reports to look for "deep pockets"

If you have assets, bingo, you're sued. Whether or not you took action. And even if you are cleared by law enforcement on a shooting.

The CC permit holder could be sued either way he/she goes in almost any situation. Sorry if this takes away some of the warm glow of security you feel as a permit holder. It's just a fact in America today.

ATW525
December 23, 2007, 02:21 PM
So if an attacker broke into your house and was going to slit your wife's or kid's throat and you are standing there with a handgun, you are saying you are not qualified to end the threat? GIVE ME A BREAK...

I say, anyone that values life, and knows how to pull a trigger is qualified.

The scenerio of this post is not alot different than the attacker slitting your wife's throat. There is a recognizable threat that someone is taking getting ready to take a defenseless person's life.

imo, loe's are no more qualified (many less) to end a threat than I am...

Defense of myself, close friends and immediate family is a completely different situation than intervening in defense of perfect strangers. Quite frankly, the notion that knowing how to pull a trigger somehow qualifies a person to play hero and run around breaking up fights is downright scary.

Creature
December 23, 2007, 02:23 PM
Creature, deadly force is deadly force. It does not matter if its civilian, military, or on an alien planet.


Of course deadly force is deadly force...however, the rules regarding the application of deadly force differ enough between the two that you should not apply a DoD Directive to a encounter in the civilian world.

To say that ROE in the military are the same as the use of deadly force in the civilian world will almost certainly create problems. I suggest you further research the differences.

Also, that "tone" was not directed at you, please leave your military bulliness at your job.

Funny, I was going to say the same of you.

9mmHP
December 23, 2007, 02:25 PM
You folks must have gone to a unique law school. The one I went to, the torts professor said that the is no legal requirement to act to save or protect someone unless you have a legal duty to protect them, like your child or spouse, or you put them in the danger in the first, like pushing a non-swimmer into a pool. Now I find out he was all wrong and there is "an old common law principle" to go around shooting people you see winning fights in order to protect complete strangers, including possible initial aggressors. Will wonders never cease?

KS.45
December 23, 2007, 02:36 PM
Breaking up fights isn't the issue. Saving a life is. The legal issues are there. Law's basis is the citizen's obligations to society. Neglect and indifference are at the root of many specific laws. From child care to locking up your guns. Speed limits to blocking sidewalks, these laws are all around us and their basis goes back to neglect and indifference. In a civil action the term might be "Depraved Indifference" or "Grossly Neglectful Conduct".

Whether any one acts accordingly or considers these things is strictly up to them.

hogdogs
December 23, 2007, 02:46 PM
In florida they claim that I must stop at an auto accident and attempt to render aid if emergency personnel are not there yetor face severe charges. A doctor is in fear of malpractice suit if he renders aid. I don't see where it should be a legal issue anytime a person has to decide to render assistance or not... It is a moral decision IMO...
Brent

Scriz
December 23, 2007, 02:46 PM
Funny, I was going to say the same of you.

Creature, I am law enforcement in the military. Theres quite a bit of difference between ROE on the front line and ROE in law enforcement, I do agree with you. But the ROE do not differ that much. I did reference the deadly force triangle, which are the rules of engagement. :D

Atleast about the military part, we can agree on something. :D

JN01
December 23, 2007, 02:54 PM
The US Supreme Court ruled that police officers can't be held liable for failing to protect any particular person, even though one of their primary functions may be to protect society in a general sense. If a police officer isn't legally responsible, why would a civilian CCW be held legally responsible?

Don Lu
December 23, 2007, 03:28 PM
If a police officer isn't legally responsible, why would a civilian CCW be held legally responsible?

100% correct...Im surprised the thread has gone on for so long in the way that it has..There is a difference between peoples moral convictions and whats mandated by law..having a CCW doesnt make you anything except a person who is able to conceal a weapon. We are not part of some elite crime stopping unit with the resposibility of protecting the innocent or maybe not so innocent. I would really like to see a case where someone was prosecuted and convicted in a situation simular to the OP scenario. The instructor gave terrible advice in my opinion..My duty is to myself and my family first(primarily being able to protect and provide for them)...anything that puts me at risk of not being able to do that; whether is me in jail, me broke from legal stuff lawsuits for getting involved, me getting injured or killed is not part of my duty. everything depends on the situation at that time, but I/we are NOT required to use lethal or any other force in the OP scenario.

STLRN
December 23, 2007, 03:58 PM
Actually DOD uses the Standing Rules for the Use of Force (SRUF) for the few occasions in which the interact with civilians here in the states. ROE, only applies outside the US.

rbrgs
December 23, 2007, 04:11 PM
I thought we were part of the most elite group in history, citizens of a free country. We'll only stay free if were willing to do stuff, including stuff that scares us. I don't want to live in a society where people feel no obligation to resist evil, or believe that only some people (however you define it) are worth protecting.

Those of us who aren't lawyers aren't surprised that law schools teach lies; lawyers are professional liars anyway (my brother is an attorney; both me and my dad think what he does for money is immoral, so maybe I'm biased).

Common Law has never been repealed, just ignored.

I'd rather be hung for a ram than a sheep.

KS.45
December 23, 2007, 04:58 PM
Police Departments are sued all the time. Winning or losing the lawsuit is not the issue to discuss here. It's being aware that the law can be accessed by anyone with any grievance and an attorney willing to roll the dice. It's part of the weight of that firearm you carry.

Even in your own home, defending yourself from an intruder has and will continue to result in the filing of lawsuits against the gun owner. The opportunity is always there for the injured/dead person, and/or his family. Doesn't happen every time, but often enough to make it a consideration worthy of thought.

ATW525
December 23, 2007, 05:04 PM
It's being aware that the law can be accessed by anyone with any grievance and an attorney willing to roll the dice.

All the more reason not to get involved if you don't have to.

KS.45
December 23, 2007, 05:08 PM
Leaving before the cops get there might be the out to stay uninvolved. If others there don't know you.

TexasSeaRay
December 23, 2007, 05:22 PM
All the more reason not to get involved if you don't have to.

Yep, that's my stance.

I won't lift a finger to help my fellow man. Don't care if wild, rabid dogs are attacking a couple of schoolyard children--let those dogs rip, tear and destroy.

Someone might sue me if I dare help those kids.

Same thing if I see a gang raping some young woman in a covered parking lot. I'm gonna pat my pistol confidently and remind myself, "I'M the most important person in the whole wide world. It's all about ME FIRST and MY FAMILY. Besides, that woman was probably asking for it or she might be filming an adult movie.

It's none of my business, and besides, the director of that adult film might sue me."

Shoot, I might be sitting at a restaurant when some crazy comes in and starts shooting people. Soon as he shoots the people at the table next to me, I'll make my wife run for the door with me right behind her. Hope my pistol is secure. Too bad about the old folks sitting next to us. Hell, they'd already lived a long life anyhow.

Besides, their grandchildren might sue me.

I might hear my next-door neighbors screaming for help because a couple of methed up burglars are trashing their house and slicing up their pets and about to start on their pre-school aged children. I'll have to holler back that it's not MY wife getting beat to hell, nor is it MY kids who are about to get abused. I've got no responsiblity whatsoever to them. No moral duty whatsoever.

Besides, the burglars' meth supplier might sue me.

Jeff

ATW525
December 23, 2007, 05:34 PM
Yep, that's my stance.

I won't lift a finger to help my fellow man. Don't care if wild, rabid dogs are attacking a couple of schoolyard children--let those dogs rip, tear and destroy.

Someone might sue me if I dare help those kids.

Same thing if I see a gang raping some young woman in a covered parking lot. I'm gonna pat my pistol confidently and remind myself, "I'M the most important person in the whole wide world. It's all about ME FIRST and MY FAMILY. Besides, that woman was probably asking for it or she might be filming an adult movie.

It's none of my business, and besides, the director of that adult film might sue me."

Shoot, I might be sitting at a restaurant when some crazy comes in and starts shooting people. Soon as he shoots the people at the table next to me, I'll make my wife run for the door with me right behind her. Hope my pistol is secure. Too bad about the old folks sitting next to us. Hell, they'd already lived a long life anyhow.

Besides, their grandchildren might sue me.

I might hear my next-door neighbors screaming for help because a couple of methed up burglars are trashing their house and slicing up their pets and about to start on their pre-school aged children. I'll have to holler back that it's not MY wife getting beat to hell, nor is it MY kids who are about to get abused. I've got no responsiblity whatsoever to them. No moral duty whatsoever.

Besides, the burglars' meth supplier might sue me.

Jeff

The comment you quoted was in regards to secenario outlined in this thread, which had nothing to do with rabid dogs attacking school children, women getting gang raped, people shooting up restaraunts or any other scenario you're trying to apply it to.

RKJ
December 23, 2007, 05:36 PM
First I want to say I hate these "What If" scenarios. If actor A is on the ground unable to fight back/defend himself it doesn't matter at that time who was the instigator. I have said this before and I'll continue to say it, I in good conscience could not walk away from that. I don't know that I would shoot either one but a well placed size 9 1/2 to the ribs ought to get the assault stopped. Perhaps that would land me in a heap of trouble, both immediately and after the fact, but I would try that 1st before resorting to deadly force. As far as the legal ramifications; Do I have the legal right? Will I get sued, should I get involved? Yada, Yada, Yada. That is BS! Maybe the person on the ground deserves a butt kicking (for whatever reason) but if unconscious or otherwise unable to react someone needs to stop it.

Lurper
December 23, 2007, 05:39 PM
KS, your understanding of the law (or lack thereof) is truly astounding. There is no legal requirement to get involved and no consequence if you don't. None. Anyone can sue for anything, but to say that a victim has civil recourse against you is way over the top. Aside from having a hard time proving damages from your action, they would have to show that you were somehow negligent in your duty or responsibility to protect the victim. Since you have neither legally, they would not have a case. Again, show me the law or case precedent.

Indifference and neglect are used in common case law in both criminal and civil courts. Juries decide on these issues regularly. From an insurance company that won't pay for surgery, like the Sarkisyan case in CA. or the parent leaving the kid in a hot car alone in NV.
The plaintiff undoubtedly paid the insurance company to provide insurance, therefore, the insurance company has an obligation to pay as provided by the policy. But again, apples and oranges.

Leaving a child in a car is a violation of statute in most states (in the west anyway), therefore again an empty argument. You cannot be charged with a crime if you don't intervene. Show me the law.

If a police officer isn't legally responsible, why would a civilian CCW be held legally responsible?
A civilian is not legally responsible. But more importantly, in this context a LEO is shielded by law for liability to a great extent. As a civilian, you are not. Just another reason not to get involved.

I you choose to get involved based on a moral decision, that is your right. Think it through first though and be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions especially if the action is based on incomplete information. But don't say or imply that a civilian has a legal "duty" to intervene because it just isn't true!

Don Lu
December 23, 2007, 06:26 PM
Im with Lurper.

Double Naught Spy
December 23, 2007, 06:41 PM
I didn't post an answer to the query initially because I feared this was going to happen. It is sort of a pattern where you see somebody posting a query they learned in class and their roll is to be the instructor in the thread and to enlighten members by first having them answer the query and then correcting them based on what was learned from the instructor in class.

KS.45, your CC instructor loaded you up with a bunch of garbage.

The instructor's answer is to get 911 called, loudly ask a witness to do it if there are any. Verbally warn the aggressor, LOUDLY. End your statement to him with "Don't make me shoot you!"

Part of your instructor's solution is threatening lethal force? Given all the crap about liability, don't you think that might have been a bit extreme?

If B dies with you doing nothing but getting 911 called and it becomes known that you were carrying, you might be subject to civil action by B's family. If you shoot the agressor, the same thing may also happen, he will have a family too.

The instructor remarked that this is one of the things that that people don't often think about when they decide to CC. It's more than just you and your family that can be involved.

Always know that you can and will be sued in a deadly force situation.

Please share with us the law or laws that say you must intervene and that if you have a gun that you must intervene with lethal force or threat of lethal force. As noted, Kansas must be on another planet because nobody else has heard of such nonsense, but feel free to prove me wrong and cite the specific laws to prove your point. Otherwise, it is garbage.

And no, you won't necessarily be sued in a lethal force situation where you were not a participant. More garbage.

If you allow B to kill A then you are technically accessory to murder. The law may not charge you as such, but your lack of prevention in a killing makes you guilty just the same.

First of all, if you would technically be an accessory to murder, this would be a criminal legal action and not civil to worry about. Your CC instructor apparently doesn't know the difference between being a witness and being a participant. You are not guilty just the same. I suggest you not take advice from your CC instructor and if he is a state certified instructor, you might want to notify the state that he has some serious issues with his understanding of the law.

FYI, if it is a beating, the presense of a gun on you would have no bearing if you have the ability to intervene.

Just curious, did you think about why the CC instructor suggested you do all sorts of other things before actually taking action? If you feel the victim's life is in danger, why the hel would you be calling 911 first, asking for witnesses, and then playing super hero? Would your CC instructor say you are liable and an accessory to murder if the victim died while you were dialing 911 and asking for witnesses and not actually intervening?

Police Departments are sued all the time. Winning or losing the lawsuit is not the issue to discuss here. It's being aware that the law can be accessed by anyone with any grievance and an attorney willing to roll the dice. It's part of the weight of that firearm you carry.

Cite specific law to prove this point. If you can't cite the law, then give it up.

Even in your own home, defending yourself from an intruder has and will continue to result in the filing of lawsuits against the gun owner. The opportunity is always there for the injured/dead person, and/or his family. Doesn't happen every time, but often enough to make it a consideration worthy of thought.

Apparently, you and your CC instructor are not aware of Castle Doctrine laws

KS.45
December 23, 2007, 08:27 PM
In Kansas, there is "Castle doctrine law" if it is in your state, it gives a measure of protection. I still say under civil common law, you can be sued for any injury of death as a result of actions you take. There is no law against suing anyone for anything.

Because there is a gun (deadly force) involved, any lawsuit on the subject will receive some serious attention. Certainly as much attention as the suit for compensation when the laundry loses or ruins your pants as on the East coast recently.

No law prevents filing civil action except in specific situations. The "Castle Doctrine" presents that sort of issue, it is being tested in court in states where these laws are in effect.

When you are sued, you generally must respond or a "default judgement" may be entered against you. The plaintiff only must allege that the "Castle doctrine" does not apply, explain why it doesn't by offering evidence, and specific legal cites (if he has any), then seek damages as the court allows. The court takes the suit from there. The court can dismiss with prejudice for failure to offer sufficent evidence the law doen't apply, or ask you to offer your interpretation of the circumstances and also offer evidence. There ya are in court with the Castle Law on your side and still arguing.

You may win, hopefully you do, but legal costs will be there to pay.

kgpcr
December 23, 2007, 08:34 PM
KS i would not get involved past getting closer and letting him know i have called 911 and the cops are on the way.If he stops and comes after me thats another story. If there were a few other peopel around i might see if a few will help me break it up but i am not going to intervene because i dont know whats going on. Maybe the guy just pulled a perp off of a girl while he was raping her and its her father on top. Now you just shot the guy who stopped a rape on his daughter. I am not a Keyboard Commando who needs to be the tough guy all the time.You have no idea what has happened so you need to think about busting a cap in the guy!

hogdogs
December 23, 2007, 08:35 PM
KS45, In your last post you simply did not address the possibility of being sued for INACTION! I think you agree with the masses now?
Brent

KS.45
December 23, 2007, 09:00 PM
I may get involved depending on the circumstance. It may hinge on the witnesses to the beating.

If I'm in an unfamiliar place my impulse will be to leave when I see the fight. Maybe I'll block my CID and call 911 .. other than that .. I fear the cost of defending myself in court and the results if an unfriendly jury or judge are on the case. Like someone mentioned, I really have no connection to the thing until I try to stop it. Am I my brothers keeper? Who are the people involved? I simply don't know.

If I have to go through a group of people on the way out who are yelling at the guy to stop. I'll evaluate that. If I have a witness with me, I'll add that to my thoughts.

Just setting this scenario has given me a lot of input about the wisdom of the instructor's advice. It's caused me to think even more deeply. There's a helluva lot riding on pulling the weapon.

I think this scenario has caused others to consider the issue and promoted an exchange of ideas. That's what I hoped for, but there is still no clear answer to a scenario that exists only in fiction as far as I know. The instructor is a career police officer, he seemed to be pretty sure of his law. But I don't know him well. Rendering assistance at an accident is required in many places. Putting your own life and assets on the line might be held as too much to expect from an onlooker.

I honestly don't know what I really would do. That's the best answer I can give at this point. I doubt that many of us are dead solid sure of their reaction either. The real world can grab hold pretty hard when the stuff hits the fan.

allenomics
December 23, 2007, 09:25 PM
I'd call 911. Then I would attempt to distract the assailant. If the assailant approached me with what I perceive is the intent to kill, I would be justified to take action against my attacker. Also, if I perceive that one person is going to kill another, I would be justified to take action to save a life.

jlwman
December 23, 2007, 09:38 PM
In Kansas, there is no "Castle doctrine law"

That's not true either. Kansas has adopted a "Castle doctrine" sometime in the past year or two.

Here is the page: http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatuteInfo.do

Enter statute number 21-3211.

Do a web search on Kansas Castle Doctrine. You'll find stuff everywhere...including the NRA page stating Kansas has a Castle Doctrine.

You really need to brush up on some of these laws if you seriously have a CC license in Kansas. I do too and you make me kinda nervous. No offense.

Here's somewhere that might help you. www.ksccw.com It's for Kansas CCL holders. Lots of law info including who to contact at the AG's office if you have questions.

KS.45
December 23, 2007, 11:35 PM
Thanks jlwman, I stand corrected. The post is corrected.

ssilicon
December 24, 2007, 11:24 AM
Depending on location, you might have to worry about being sued or even charged with a crime if you fail to render some kind of help... like attempting to call police for example. I know of nowhere that you are expected to place your own safety at risk though, by personally physically engaging. No one (civilian anyway) can be compelled to risk their own life or limb for the sake of another like that. You sure can risk consequences though if you wind up seriously harming or killing someone by such intervention. There is no doubt about that.

markj
December 24, 2007, 02:50 PM
You are a witness and licensed to carry. What do you say and/or do?



Another BTDT from my younger days. I had this happen at work one night, was unarmed tho cause I was at work. Broke em up in a not so harmful way. Call cops, see em both get arrested and taken away. Didnt have to shoot anyone.

What a blood thirsty crowd we have here.........

Shoot is the absolute last choice only used after all others have failed. Anything else just isnt right no way no how I dont care about yer make belive scenario. I have taken weapons away from guys, sawed off shot guns stuff like that. Never shot anyone.

kgpcr
December 24, 2007, 04:44 PM
MarkJ
they are not so much blood thirsty but Keyboad Commando's that dont really know any better. They cant wait to shoot some one! Its a last resort only! Some one with a permit will stick his face in a place where it does not belong and then the fun will start. Just this week in MN we had a permit holder who shot an undercover cop who had a few words for him and word rage working. Now he faces a ton of charges that will land his ass in jail. Good for him! he should have never gotten out of his car!

ssilicon
December 24, 2007, 05:29 PM
they are not so much blood thirsty but Keyboad Commando's that dont really know any better. They cant wait to shoot some one! Its a last resort only!

I guess when one carries a big stick, one should walk (and talk) softly.

TexasSeaRay
December 25, 2007, 01:52 AM
Just this week in MN we had a permit holder who shot an undercover cop who had a few words for him and word rage working. Now he faces a ton of charges that will land his ass in jail. Good for him! he should have never gotten out of his car!

Might want to get your facts straight on this incident . . .

Jeff

joab
December 25, 2007, 07:32 AM
Can you straighten us out Texas

I haven't heard of the incident

Double Naught Spy
December 25, 2007, 08:45 AM
So KS.45, I see you still haven't cited the specific laws. Any reason why not? How about citing cases, civil suits, of where witnesses were sued for not taking action? How about citing some cases where witnesses were sued for not taking action because they were legally carrying concealed? And while you are at it, be sure to include the portion of the law that makes the civil suit viable.

Given your prosition of giving legal advice here and your inability to cite law, your lack of understanding is quite alarming.

9mmHP
December 27, 2007, 09:58 PM
Hope you're not holding your breath.

kgpcr
December 28, 2007, 01:22 AM
TexasSeaRay
http://wcco.com/local/robbinsdale.road.rage.2.615367.html
Here is the news report on it.

kgpcr
December 28, 2007, 01:24 AM
Looks like if he wins he looses. Drive by shooting is a very serious crime and he shot a cop. Not a good thing at all. If he wins he will have spent a fortune on attorneys. I bet he wished he would have stay in his car!!

TexasSeaRay
December 28, 2007, 01:29 AM
kgpcr,

Apparently, there is some additional information that has come forth and more to come. Latest reports I've heard/read (several days ago, now), state that Beard, the undercover cop, was heard by no less than three credible witnesses threatening the shooter with "I'll kill you!" and "Ain't no big thing, punk. I'll kill you" prior to being shot. Worse yet, Beard (the cop) didn't identify himself as a cop until AFTER things had completely denigrated to FUBAR.

Got an old DoJ pal who lives in St. Paul that's tight with the PD up there. He's hearing some interesting things. Says if the cop had lived, he'd be going to jail--no if's about it.

Preliminary line (again, as of several days ago) was that the cop was way, way, way out of line and provoked the situation.

Of course, on the other hand it's kind of hard to defend to entrance wounds to the back of an alleged attacker . . .

Either way, it's pretty clear up to this point that two hotheads let their johnsons do their talking because their faces knew better.

No winners in this one, man. No winners.

Jeff

kgpcr
December 28, 2007, 04:08 PM
Jeff
the cop did live and is facing charges himself

lawboy
December 30, 2007, 11:57 PM
Some have indicated that a person licensed and carrying, who did not intervene in the scenario presented, could be legally liable to the family of the man beat to death. NOT SO. The law DOES NOT impose a duty to act on ANYONE who otherwise has no legal duty to act and who has not given rise to a duty to act by taking voluntary actions that give rise to a special relationship between them and the victim. THERE IS NO DUTY TO BE A GOOD SAMARITAN in the United States.
There is a very good reason WHY the law is what it is. Simply being present during a crisis (pick any crisis) DOES NOT mean the person present has the knowledge, skill, physical attributes, mental attributes or health to become involved in a manner that is safe, useful and DOES NOT CAUSE MORE OF A PROBLEM. The law recognizes this fact and therefore does not obligate people to act simply because they are present. Such a law would surely cause more harm than good as people without the ability to intervene safely would do so out of fear of the law, often getting hurt, or causing more harm than good. YOU HAVE NOT DUTY TO DO ANYTHING.
Now, let's say that you are there, there is a crowd and the guy is getting a beating. You announce in a loud voice that you are going to call the cops -- you try, but your cell phone is dead so you cannot make the call. YOU SAY NOTHING. Others who WOULD HAVE CALLED BUT FOR YOUR ANNOUNCEMENT, also do not call. The man is beat to death. Now you have some serious liability because you have just interjected yourself, caused others to rely on you to make the call, thus depriving the victim of the benefit of others who MIGHT HAVE CALLED HAD THEY NOT RELIED ON YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOU WERE GOING TO CALL. The victim's family will sue. They will win. I would take their case.
Folks, please, get the laws straight. This is serious stuff.

9mmHP
January 3, 2008, 12:33 PM
lawboy, please don't interject facts here. Didn't you read, lawyers are all liars. That's why we should only follow common law which is law made by....lawyers. Of course, there is no common law duty to intervene either, but let's not allow that to stop the chest thumping. Those who are willfully and contemptuously ignorant will remain so despite your efforts.

CrazyIvan007
January 3, 2008, 12:50 PM
You are a witness and licensed to carry. What do you say and/or do?

A verbal order for A to cease.

A verbal warning I have a firearm while I pull my firearm from its hidden position and again with an order to cease.

If attacker continues, take a knee (so as not to overpenetrate the target and hit person B. Warn again, and if A does not stop, take a shot at the torso/chest.

kgpcr
January 6, 2008, 02:17 PM
Good one Crazy you just shot a guy who he just pulled off his daugter as he was trying to rape her and beat her ass up. she is on the way to call the cops and now you just shot her day. I am glad you got to shoot someone! Finaly after all this time i get to pull the trigger. The problem here is you do not have a clue as to what is going on and who is getting beat up. Now if its some one you know or some one is screaming for help that changes things. I wonder if you would be able to pull the trigger? many say they would untill the time comes. then its not so easy.

Socrates
January 7, 2008, 09:55 AM
Not much point in this as a general discussion. Tort precedent and CCW law are individual to your state.

I've had a couple near fights in my area, the last couple years, and, cell phones are a wonderful thing.

I can say that in the People's Republic, gun comes out I go to jail, since CCW laws are such that legal carry is impossible, unless you're Diane Fienstien.

I've yet to see a tort system, and this includes our state, that you could be held liable in anyway for not intervening. In fact, even the police have been found to have no tort liability, or obligation, to protect.

In short, know your state laws, both tort and criminal, and, it wouldn't hurt to know your Federal laws as well, in both areas.

jabotinsky
January 7, 2008, 04:56 PM
Having seen lots of fights like many here, I have to say that if one guy is down and the other guy is starting to kick him in the head, I would intervene physically to break it up. If the attacker is too big, I'd yell & use the cell, withdraw. I wouldn't just stand by & watch somebody get stomped to death, but I also wouldn't shoot an aggressor in a fistfight.

zxcvbob
January 7, 2008, 06:04 PM
Without putting too fine a point on it, what if it's a Rodney King type incident?

Chui
January 7, 2008, 06:26 PM
One NEVER shoots to "WOUND". Yes, it was followed with "shoot to stop", but words can be your ally and they can be an even greater enemy. Please DROP "shoot to wound" from your lexicon. It can hang you.

Socrates
January 7, 2008, 06:50 PM
What if the one of the participants is an undercover police officer?

Dustinthewind
January 8, 2008, 11:26 PM
Ks.45

I too am from Kansas and a fellow permit holder. I am a bit outraged and a bit alarmed by your instructors teachings. :eek: You have no obligation in Ks. to protect someones life, including your own; The choice is yours to make. We Do have a Castle Doctrine and you are protected from civil action if you shoot and it is determined to be a good shoot. I would like to know the name of your instructor and where he holds his classes as it seems that he is providing misinformation.
In the scenario to which you posted you have a couple of options:

1 Walk away
2 Get involved

If you choose option one there is no legal action to take against you. If you choose option 2 your best recourse is to call 911. How do you know that the agressor A was not originally the agressee and has just now gotten the upper hand? Maybe he is a fellow permit holder that was attacked and is defending his life with his hands. And you must remember that each and every bullet fired from your gun is yours to own, meaning if you fire and strike a bystander, car, building, you can be sued and you can face criminal prosecution. When you took your CCW class you should have recievd a copy of both the Ks Senate and House Bills. My advice is to read it. If you didn't recive this info, it is available from the Ks. Attorney General.

MLeake
January 10, 2008, 07:25 PM
Possession of a CCW doesn't allow me any more privileges or authority, and doesn't make me a law enforcement agent of any sort. However, it also doesn't make me any less of a person. So, would I (me, personally, not as generic CCW holder) intervene?

The answer is yes, I would, based on past behavior patterns and upbringing. I was raised by a Sicilian mother who would never let me live it down if I just stood by, and as a result I've stuck my nose into situations like this a time or two over the years... But I would really, really not want to draw the weapon. Given that I have never needed a weapon in the past for such a situation, I would hopefully not need it in this scenario. I don't want the legal headaches, and I'm quite happy not having to deal with any of the psychological traumas that typically accompany the taking of a life.

Frankly, the presence of the weapon complicates things. One of my major concerns would be how NOT to have to use it, followed by how to act effectively while not letting anybody else gain control of it.

Verbal warning and 911 call would be the obvious first steps. Coordination with other good samaritans, if available, would be a nice option here. Watch some reality TV whenever they show a good team of bouncers, or US Marshals, and see how often the pros opt for a one on one takedown if two or three can rush the guy instead. Help is good.

Next step, if deemed necessary, would be an attempt to physically dislodge the still conscious combatant. Ideally, it wouldn't only be me pulling the guy off the unconscious combatant. But if it were just me, unless the guy is a tank, double armbars work pretty well. So do certain chokes, but those open up a whole 'nother Pandora's box of legal and moral issues... Chokes and neck holds are inherently dangerous, and I can't recommend them to anybody who doesn't know how to apply them, or when and how to safely release them.

My mother once pulled me off of somebody by my right ear, but I don't think I'd try that approach, and I definitely can't recommend it. It was startlingly effective, though. Funny, too, even at the time.

From my limited experience in breaking up fights between humans, and somewhat more extensive experience in breaking up fights between large dogs (generally boxers, pits, dobies and shepherds - not trained fighting dogs, just out of control and excited wannabe alpha males at the dog park), it helps if you can stay cool even when physically engaged, and tell the person (or animal) to knock it off in a calm but take-no-bs voice. Panic or anger only escalate things further. Even when your adrenaline is up, you have to do your best not to show it. But if you can sound calm, the other person may stop struggling sooner.

Note 1: my voice stays nice and steady. My right eye may tic a bit if I'm really angry or scared, but my voice stays steady. This does take some practice....

With dogs or people, grabs work better from rear or flank. Easier to get the hold, harder for them to respond, and of course harder for them to see the tic in the right eye. :D

Note 2: hopefully, witness statements are in your favor when LEO's show up. I was very happy that they were, in the one case where things got to that point.

Note 3: Aikido, judo and ju-jitsu are really useful arts for learning how to stop somebody without necessarily having to do lasting physical damage. Option to do damage exists, but a lot of that depends on the other guy.

Here's a question for the CCW holders here: If you are really worried about defense of self and others, how much time do you spend on physical fitness and martial arts training? Situations which justify use of limited force are much more common that those which justify deadly force. And I'd hate to think that people in the forum would choose to draw a weapon because it's their only viable option for a physical intervention.

Engloid
January 13, 2008, 08:39 PM
The guy on top likely isn't paying any attention to anybody else in the room. I guess you would have the option to get behind him and choke him out. :D